EVE General Discussion

That is, BTW, the "skin in the game" concept that Dracvlad has long been a proponent of. That in order to be a deccing or deccable corp, you had to have assets in space. This gave both sides something to deal with, instead of station games and camping. A deccing corp could have its assets attacked when they are weakest and can't just go blanket deccing everybody. A decced corp would have something in space to defend and can't just go corp-dropping or simply stay docked. It gave both sides something to risk, defend, and maybe even gain.

Now that you agree with Dracvlad on something, I'm going to see this as a weakness for having failed to browbeat another player out of his idea. Shame on you, having an idea that might even remotely match that of another player. Are you slipping? Are you sick? Where's the Conan the Contrarian in you? I bet your prowess in the bedroom will suffer too.

You best come up with the opposite idea and push it with much vitriol and hate let we mistake you for a decent person. WoW is that way -->

omega player pay to play the game so they will play it as they see fit , i am not a pvp player just done mainly industry but are gearing towards pvp , so hopefully i get good at it .
with the wars decs most players just carry on as before so cant force players to pvp , and if you do kill them its just regarded as a gank .

You are now encouraging 'log off and don't play for a week' as the best response to war decs.
People who drop corp are at least still undocking and interacting in EVE.

You are also making it possible to utterly grief someone out of the game, and advocating the use of alts to hunt people, when NPC corps are meant to be a place people can return to from a failed player corp in order to start the rebuilding process.

So yeah, there are your holes.

Other than cost scaling being based on the defender currently while it should be based on the aggressor (with a fee for adding corp members if you have offensive war decs running when you add someone), there is nothing wrong with the war mechanics.
The issues lie in the lack of incentives for high sec corps, and the lack of incentives for a defender to fight if they believe they are outmatched.

Like Ralph I agree with what you have written here.

Herzog, contrary to your stunted view I do agree with people who have rational and well thought out view points. That automatically precludes Infinity Ziona.

Oh, and FYI, this is not the first time I've agreed with Dracvlad.

You want more PvP with people who avoid wardec because they don't want PvP?

So in other words: attacker corp will be bribing concord to shoot pilots under their guns and defender corp will be bribing NPC corp to take them under their wing. You just add more cost to the war. What will this solve?

Going to a war should be riskless?

For now I've only see one proposition worth think of

but I think it would void all hisec wars.

I would remove wardecs all together

Sure. That's why they should be able to form a corp where they don't have to deal with wars. They can then have fun doing whatever it they want to, and those looking to fight don't have to waste their time or ISK declaring war on them.

All that is needed to allow that is something like the proposal you quoted - a way to opt-out of that risk of wars, but that comes with opting out of the rewards a player corp brings.

The risk vs. reward is regarding being in player corps, not wars. Player corporations come with benefits, but they also come with responsibilities. You should (and already can) opt out of wars if you are willing to give up the benefits of a player corp. I just think it is short-sighted to make the social benefits of being in a corp one of those things you have to give up for that extra safety.

I don't think attackers should be compensated when a corp disbands. They won. That is their reward. But I do think that you should not be allowed to quit a corp to dodge a war, and then immediately start benefiting from being in another corp. It defeats the whole paradigm that being in a player corp puts you at more risk if you can just shed that risk at no cost by hopping to an alt corp. If you want to opt-out of wars, even one you are currently in, then fine, but you should actually have to stay out of wars and corps (or at least not benefit from them) for some time. Whether that is through a punishment to disincentivize such behaviour or a complete prohibition, that is for CCP to decide.

1) Wars are the means that player groups interact with each other in highsec. It can be done for many reasons which are largely immaterial in a sandbox game. It is up to the players to decide how to use the mechanic to make stuff happen. I do admit we could use some more conflict drivers put into the game to give players more reasons to want to take the risk and effort to start a war, but ultimately the reasons are not relevant to the mechanic. It is just a way to turn of the NPCs and allow legal fighting to take place between a defined group of players.
2) I don't know. You can defend yourself in many ways including evasion, taking the field, and securing allies. All I know is that if you are in a player corporation, you should have to defend yourself. If you don't want to compete, well then you can go play another game, or use the intended method to end the war and drop to the NPC corp and forgo the benefits you get for being in a player corp.
3) I have no idea. Again, it doesn't matter. Eve isn't a balanced PvP game and there are already mechanics for the defenders to add allies to the war and turn the tables on the attackers. I'd love for there to be more wars between equal (and smaller) sides fighting over provincial things, but wars have been nerfed such that they are too risky and too expensive for your average small corp to use. This has made declaring war more of a professional activity and generally increase the power gap between two sides.

Wars are not a "gud fight" machine designed to produce somewhat equal and balanced conflict. That would be Faction Warfare. Wars are just the way fighting is done and the larger competitive game manifests itself in highsec. They allow players to interact and compete for resources, space and industry using guns, often in a completely unbalanced way. I really do think there should be a place and mechanism to allow players to opt-out of this conflict and play the game casually and/or non-competitively, and there already are, most notably the NPC corp. That said, if you want to benefit from corps, especially if you want to own structures, you should be at risk of the other players objecting and declaring war on you. You are not entitled to have some guarantee that those players who show up to shoot you will be of similar size or of similar power to you. If you allow 'smallness' and 'weakness' to become a valid defense against aggressors, then many people will just make themselves 'small' and 'weak' to exploit this safety which is counterproductive in a Darwinian open-world, PvP sandbox game. It is up to you to protect your stuff from all-comers.

That's the core idea of the game.